This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4
Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Gregory G. Deierlein Andrei M. Reinhorn Michael R. Willford
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Briefs
NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Technical Briefs are published by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, as aids to the efficient transfer of NEHRP and other research into practice, thereby helping to reduce the nation’s losses from earthquakes.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a federal technology agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce that promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life. It is the lead agency of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Dr. John (Jack) R. Hayes is the Director of NEHRP, within NIST’s Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL). Dr. Kevin K. F. Wong managed the project to produce this Technical Brief for BFRL.
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Andrei Reinhorn, Ph.D., S.E., is a professor at the University at Buffalo. He has published two books and authored two computer platforms (IDARC and 3D-BASIS) for nonlinear analysis of structures and for base isolation systems. He has served as Director of the Structural Engineering and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory at the University at Buffalo. Michael R. Willford, M.A., C.Eng. is a Principal of the global consulting firm Arup with 35 years experience of design of structures for buildings, civil, and offshore projects in many parts of the world. A specialist in structural dynamics, he is leader of Arup’s Advanced Technology and Research practice, specializing in the development and application of innovative design techniques using performance-based methods.
About the Review Panel
The contributions of the three review panelists for this publication are gratefully acknowledged. Graham H. Powell, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Structural Engineering, University of California at Berkeley and was a lecturer in Civil Engineering, University of Cantebury, New Zealand, 1961-1965. He is a consultant to Computers and Structures Inc., publisher of his text Modeling for Structural Analysis. He has special expertise in seismic resistant design and the modeling of structures for nonlinear analysis. Finley A. Charney, Ph.D., P.E., is an Associate Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, and is President of Advanced Structural Concepts, Inc., also located in Blacksburg. Prior to joining Virginia Tech in 2001, Charney accumulated twenty years of experience as a practicing structural engineer. He is the author of many publications on the application of structural analysis methods in seismic design. Mason Walters, S.E., is a practicing structural engineer and a principal with Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc. in San Francisco. Walters has been in private practice for over 30 years, focusing on the application of the seismic protective systems for numerous significant buildings and bridge projects. Examples of these projects include the elevated BART/Airport Light Rail Station at San Francisco International Airport, and the seismic isolation retrofit of the historic Oakland City Hall. Many of Mr. Walters’ projects have incorporated nonlinear dynamic and static analysis procedures.
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture
This NIST-funded publication is one of the products of the work of the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture carried out under Contract SB 134107CQ0019, Task Order 69195. The partners in the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture are the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). The members of the Joint Venture Management Committee are James R. Harris, Robert Reitherman, Christopher Rojahn, and Andrew Whittaker, and the Program Manager is Jon A. Heintz. Assisting the Program Manager is ATC Senior Management Consultant David A. Hutchinson, who on this Technical Brief provided substantial technical assistance in the development of the content.
About The Authors
Gregory G. Deierlein, Ph.D., P.E., is a faculty member at Stanford University where he specializes in the design and behavior of steel and concrete structures, nonlinear structural analysis, and performancebased design of structures for earthquakes and other extreme loads. Deierlein is the Director of the John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center at Stanford. He is active in national technical committees involved with developing building codes and standards, including those of the American Institute of Steel Construction, the Applied Technology Council, and the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) 201 Redwood Shores Parkway - Suite 240 Redwood City, California 94065 (650) 595-1542 www.atcouncil.org email: email@example.com
Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE) 1301 South 46th Street - Building 420 Richmond, CA 94804 (510) 665-3529 www.curee.org email: firstname.lastname@example.org
NIST GCR 10-917-5
Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce Building and Fire Research Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600 By Gregory G. Deierlein, Ph.D., P.E. Stanford University Stanford, California Andrei M. Reinhorn, Ph.D., S.E. University at Buffalo, SUNY Buffalo, New York Michael R. Willford, M.A., C.Eng. Arup San Francisco, California
U.S. Department of Commerce Gary Locke, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Patrick Gallagher, Director
........ 8... Cover photo – Nonlinear analysis model for a seismic retrofit study of an existing building with concrete shear walls....................... 3............... Deierlein. Introduction........... 2..........” NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No.........32 Disclaimers The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all of its publications....19 Requirements for Nonlinear Static Analysis.........4 Modeling of Structural Components..............12 Foundations and Soil Structure Interaction............................ How to Cite This Publication .....Contents 1..... Task Order 69195 with the National Institute of Standards and Technology.... Users of the information in this publication assume all liability arising from such use..... 6. nor make any expressed or implied warranty with regard to......... The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the US Government................ the authors... a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. 7...... Andrei M.................23 References...30 Credits....... in North America in the construction and building materials industry. This publication was produced as part of contract SB134107CQ0019......................................... Michael R............... NIST GCR 10-917-5...... Reinhorn........................... MD............................. the use of its information............ This Technical Brief was produced under contract to NIST by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture............ (2010)................................................ “Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design... 4. for the National Institute of Standards and Technology......... 5.... a joint venture of the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE)..... produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture........................ and the reviewers do not assume liability for................... However........ 4............................... Gaithersburg......................................... While endeavoring to provide practical and accurate information in this publication.... certain non-SI units are so widely used instead of SI units that it is more practical and less confusing to include measurement values for customary units only in this publication........1 Nonlinear Demand Parameters and Model Attributes.....................21 Requirements for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis... 9..... and Willford.....................................27 Notations and Abbreviations..... the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture........ Gregory G.....
mechanical/electrical systems. Other demand parameters (especially story drifts and floor accelerations) are also important indicators of damage to nonstructural components and overall building performance (PEER 2010. systems. and nonstructural damage. and contents. Enabled by advancements in computing technologies and available test data. for design purposes it is convenient to identify discrete performance levels for the major structural and other building components that significantly affect building function..e. 2008. most will experience significant inelastic deformations under large earthquakes. envelope. there may be other significant performance limits (such as onset of damage to the building envelope) that have major implications on lifecycle cost and functionality. Introduction 1. nonlinear analysis can play an important role in the design of new and existing buildings. PEER/ATC 2010.) • Life Safety . If the intent of using a nonlinear analysis is to justify a design that would not satisfy the prescriptive building code requirements. i. and safety.1 The Role and Use of Nonlinear Analysis in Seismic Design While buildings are usually designed for seismic resistance using elastic analysis. ceilings. since this performance level is not typically addressed in building codes. Sidebars in the guide Sidebars are used in this Guide to illustrate key points. property protection. and construction. Willford et al. ASCE 41 (ASCE 2007) and other standards generally provide guidance on three performance levels: • Immediate Occupancy – Achieve essentially elastic behavior by limiting structural damage (e. and to provide additional guidance on good practices and open issues in analysis.. ATC 2009). Modern performancebased design methods require ways to determine the realistic behavior of structures under such conditions. (2) design new buildings that employ structural materials. Moreover. Occupancy Category II in ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010). it is essential to develop the basis for acceptance with the building code authority at the outset of a project. As such. or other features that do not conform to current building code requirements. Nonlinear analyses involve significantly more effort to perform and should be approached with specific objectives in mind.g. including strength and stiffness deterioration associated with inelastic material behavior and large displacements.1. it is generally accepted to check the Collapse Prevention performance level for the Maximum Considered Earthquake ground motion intensity and Life Safety for the Design Basis Earthquake (defined as 2/3 of the Maximum Considered Earthquake intensity in ASCE 7). Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 1 . While the risk (or likelihood) of exceeding the damage specified in performance levels is predicated by building occupancy and other factors. for typical buildings. ASCE 41 provides acceptance criteria in terms of deformation and force demands on individual structural components. (a) (b) Figure 1-1 – New headquarters of San Francisco Public Utility Commission Building designed using nonlinear response history analysis to meet stringent immediate occupancy performance criteria. design. partitions. While the building performance is a continuum. The appropriate ground motion intensity for checking Immediate Occupancy is less well-defined. significant cracking of concrete. Typical instances where nonlinear analysis is applied in structural earthquake engineering practice are to: (1) assess and design seismic retrofit solutions for existing buildings. (3) assess the performance of buildings for specific owner/stakeholder requirements (Figure 1-1). Sidebar 1 Performance Levels and Acceptance Criteria The earthquake performance of buildings generally relates to damage incurred to the building’s structure. yielding of steel. The design basis should be clearly defined and agreed upon. outlining in specific terms all significant performance levels (Sidebar 1) and how they will be evaluated. • Collapse Prevention – Ensure a small risk of partial or complete building collapse by limiting structural deformations and forces to the onset of significant strength and stiffness degradation.Limit damage of structural and nonstructural components so as to minimize the risk of injury or casualties and to keep essential circulation routes accessible. nonlinear analyses provide the means for calculating structural response beyond the elastic range.
as the use of nonlinear analysis for design is still evolving. The design of yielding links and elastic braces in eccentrically braced frames is another example of capacity design. This permits the determination of and design for the maximum expected force demands in the protected elements. This Technical Brief is intended to provide a summary of the important considerations to be addressed. may be checked to help confirm the accuracy of the analysis and/or to assess cumulative damage effects. Where inelastic analysis is used. Since the uncertainties in calculating the demand parameters increase as the structure becomes more nonlinear.2 Background on Use of Nonlinear Analysis in Building Design in the USA The first widespread practical applications of nonlinear analysis in earthquake engineering in the USA were to assess and retrofit existing buildings. Finally. and floor accelerations. this requires sophisticated models that are validated against physical tests to capture the highly nonlinear response approaching collapse. the acceptance criteria should limit deformations to regions of predictable behavior where sudden strength and stiffness degradation does not occur. • Reliable energy dissipation by enforcing deformation modes (plastic mechanisms) where inelastic deformations are distributed to ductile components. but with the emphasis towards the latter. This guide is intended to be consistent with building codes and standards. While nonlinear analyses can. The advantages of this strategy include: • Protection from sudden failures in elements that cannot be proportioned or detailed for ductile response. story drifts. nonlinear inelastic analysis techniques and their application to design are still evolving and may require engineers to develop new skills. be used to trace structural behavior up to the onset of collapse. there are many areas where details of the implementation are open to judgment and alternative interpretations. In contrast to linear elastic analysis and design methods that are well established. where the intent is to avoid inelastic hinging in columns that could lead to premature story mechanisms and rapid strength degradation in columns with high axial loads. In this regard. the guidance can generally apply to nonlinear analysis of other types of structures. deformations as well as forces. however. capacity design concepts are encouraged to help ensure reliable performance (Sidebar 2). these documents focus primarily on nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. Nonlinear analyses require thinking about inelastic behavior and limit states that depend on Sidebar 2 Capacity Design Capacity design is an approach whereby the designer establishes which elements will yield (and need to be ductile) and those which will not yield (and will be designed with sufficient strength) based on the forces imposed by yielding elements. They also require definition of component models that capture the force-deformation response of components and systems based on expected strength and stiffness properties and large deformations. It is advisable to have clear expectations about those portions of the structure that are expected to undergo inelastic deformations and to use the analyses to (1) confirm the locations of inelastic deformations and (2) characterize the deformation demands of yielding elements and force demands in nonyielding elements. • Limiting the locations in the structure where expensive ductile detailing is required. and improvements have been proposed in FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures (FEMA 2005) and FEMA P440A Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response (FEMA Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 2 . • Greater certainty in how the building will perform under strong earthquakes and greater confidence in how the performance can be calculated. Other demand parameters. The first significant guidelines on the application of nonlinear analysis were those published in FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 1997) and ATC 40 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC 1996). Owing to the state of knowledge and computing technologies at the time of their publication (mid-1990s). considering the current capabilities of nonlinear analysis technologies and how they are being applied in practice.Once the goals of the nonlinear analysis and design basis are defined. such as cumulative deformations or dissipated energy. in concept. capacity design can be implemented by modeling the specified yielding elements with their “expected” strengths and the protected elements as elastic. 1. The demand parameters typically include peak forces and deformations in structural and nonstructural components. while this technical brief is concerned primarily with buildings. the results of nonlinear analyses can be sensitive to assumed input parameters and the types of models used. They have since been carried forward into ASCE 41 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ASCE 2007). The scope includes both nonlinear static (pushover) and dynamic (response history) analyses. Depending on the structural configuration. The well known “strong column/weak beam” requirement is an example of a capacity design strategy. for design purposes. the next step is to identify specific demand parameters and appropriate acceptance criteria to quantitatively evaluate the performance levels.
the building-specific loss assessment module of HAZUS employs nonlinear static analysis methods to develop earthquake damage fragility functions for buildings in the Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology. The following definitions are used in this Guide. HAZUS99-SR2. such as outlined in the following documents: Seismic Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings (PEER 2010). About the same time that FEMA 273 and ATC 40 were under development. FEMA 2006). including fragility models that relate structural demand parameters to explicit damage and loss metrics. the nonlinear analysis guidance and component modeling and acceptance criteria in these documents can be applied to new building design. 1. 2008). Kircher et al. and the PEER/ATC 72-1 Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings (PEER/ATC 2010). due to reduction in yield strength and stiffness that occurs during the cyclic loading. 1997b. the role of nonlinear dynamic analysis for design is being expanded to quantify building performance more completely. Backbone Curve: Relationship between the generalized force and deformation (or generalized stress and strain) of a structural component or assembly that is used to characterize response in a nonlinear analysis model. Nonlinear dynamic analyses are also being used to assess the performance of structural systems that do not conform to prescriptive seismic force-resisting system types in ASCE 7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE 2010). The ATC 58 Guidelines for Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings (ATC 2009) employ nonlinear dynamic analyses for seismic performance assessment of new and existing buildings. Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise Buildings (Willford et al. Note that while ASCE 41 and related documents have a primary focus on renovating existing buildings. Cyclic Envelope : Curve of generalized force versus deformation that envelopes response data obtained from cyclic loading of a structural component or assembly. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 3 . the most widely known being HAZUS (Kircher et al. In particular. 1997a. Monotonic Curve : Curve of generalized force versus deformation data obtained from monotonic loading of a structural component or assembly. Cyclic Strength Degradation: Reduction in strength.3 Definitions of Terms in this Guide While structural engineers familiar with the concept of nonlinear analysis for seismic design have been exposed to the following terms in a number of publications.2009a). provided that the chosen acceptance criteria provide performance levels expected for new building design in ASCE 7 (Sidebar 1). the meanings of these terms have sometimes varied. A significant impetus for this is in the design of tall buildings in high seismic regions. Advanced Engineering Building Module (FEMA 2002). In-Cycle Degradation: Reduction in strength that is associated with negative slop of load versus deflection plot within the same cycle in which yielding occurs. nonlinear analysis concepts were also being introduced into methods for seismic risk assessment. measured at a given displacement loading cycles. More recently.
The calculated demands and acceptance criteria are often compared through “demand-capacity” ratios. the structure must be modeled and analyzed so that the values of the demand parameters are calculated with sufficient accuracy for design purposes. Acceptance criteria for structural components generally distinguished between “deformation-controlled” (ductile components that can tolerate inelastic deformations) and “force-controlled” (non-ductile components whose capacities are governed by strength). in which case different models and acceptance criteria may be used. and the distinction between force. Nevertheless. Several types of structural members (e. On the other hand.2 Structural Analysis Model Types Inelastic structural component models can be differentiated by the way that plasticity is distributed through the member cross sections and along its length. 2. or components of a building. velocities. such as the building façade.. whereas force-controlled components may be modeled as elastic. provided that the force demands do not imply significant yielding in the components. the component models. and demands in deformation-sensitive components. and some flexural walls) can be modeled using the concepts illustrated in Figure 2-1: Figure 2-1 – Idealized models of beam-column elements. Displacements.1 Demand Parameters Modern performance-based seismic design entails setting performance levels and checking acceptance criteria for which a building is to be designed. the distinction provides a practical approach to establish requirements for the analysis and design. and accelerations are additional demand parameters that can provide insights into the overall building response and damage to nonstructural components and contents. For a given building and set of demand parameters.g. For example.and deformation-controlled components is not absolute. The acceptance criteria for seismic performance may vary depending on whether static or dynamic nonlinear analysis is used and how uncertainties associated with the demands and acceptance criteria are handled. including the vertical distribution of deformations and global torsion of the building. such as rigidly anchored equipment. braces. and acceptance criteria used in nonlinear static procedures need to implicitly account for cyclic degradation effects that are not modeled in the static analysis. interior partitions. The performance acceptance criteria may be specified for the overall systems. beams. Deformation-controlled components must be modeled as inelastic. columns. ASCE 41 defines deformation and strength acceptance criteria for Immediate Occupancy. Story racking deformations (which can often be approximated as story drift ratios) provide a good measure of overall structural response. or flexible piping systems. demand parameters. Peak floor accelerations and velocities are commonly used to design and assess performance of stiff acceleration-sensitive building components. and rigid piping systems. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 4 . most components exhibit some amount of inelastic deformation. Nonlinear Demand Parameters and Model Attributes 2. The performance is checked by comparing the calculated values of demand parameters (in short the “demands”) to the acceptance criteria (“capacities”) for the desired performance level. and PEER/ATC 72-1 provides guidance on criteria for the onset of structural damage and significant strength/stiffness degradation. raised floor systems. and Collapse Prevention performance levels. Life Safety. braced ceiling systems. shown in Figure 2-1 is a comparison of five idealized model types for simulating the inelastic response of beam-columns. For example. In reality. substructures. Performance levels under defined intensities of ground shaking should be checked using appropriate demand parameters and acceptance criteria.2. some dynamic analysis models may directly incorporate degradation due to cyclic loading.
Sidebar 3: Distributed Versus Concentrated Plasticity Elements While distributed plasticity formulations (Figures 2-1c to 2-1e) model variations of the stress and strain through the section and along the member in more detail. using displacement or force interpolation functions (Kunnath et al. while the finite hinge length facilitates calculation of hinge rotations. The plane-sections-remain-plane assumption is enforced. or the nonlinear interaction of flexural and shear. phenomenological concentrated hinge/spring models (Figure 2-1a and 2-1b). and strain hardening parameters on the calculated strain demands. such as degradation due to reinforcing bar buckling and fracture that can be captured by simpler phenomenological models (Sidebar 3). for which rotation acceptance criteria are more widely reported. simplified models may capture more effectively the relevant feature with the same or lower approximation. these elements have relatively condensed numerically efficient formulations. fiber (Figure 2-1d) and finite element (Figure 2-1e) models capture the P-M response directly. Whereas these models generally do a good job at tracking the initiation of yielding under axial load and bending. Spacone et al. and (3) the approximations inherent to the proposed model type. except to the extent that the moment-rotation response is defined based on average values of axial load and shear that are assumed to be present in the hinge. This fundamental level of modeling offers the most versatility. The inelastic hinge length may be fixed or variable. as determined from the momentcurvature characteristics of the section together with the concurrent moment gradient and axial force. On the other hand.• The simplest models concentrate the inelastic deformations at the end of the element. 1996). they are not necessarily capable of modeling other effects. Cross sections in the inelastic hinge zones are characterized through either nonlinear moment-curvature relationships or explicit fiber-section integrations that enforce the assumption that plane sections remain plane. (2) the assumptions. when selecting analysis model types. It is best to gain knowledge and confidence in specific models and software implementations by analyzing small test examples. important local behaviors. the strain demands and acceptance criteria should be benchmarked against concentrated hinge models. Thus. As with the fiber formulation. • The most complex models (Figure 2-1e) discretize the continuum along the member length and through the cross sections into small (micro) finite elements with nonlinear hysteretic constitutive properties that have numerous input parameters. On the other hand. it is important to understand (1) the expected behavior. While more sophisticated formulations may seem to offer better capabilities for modeling certain aspects of behavior. such as through a rigid-plastic hinge (Figure 2-1a) or an inelastic spring with hysteretic properties (Figure 2-1b). 1990. may be better suited to capturing the nonlinear degrading response of members through calibration using member test data on phenomenological momentrotations and hysteresis curves. Some types of concentrated hinge models employ axial loadmoment (P-M) yield surfaces. Distributed fiber formulations do not generally report plastic hinge rotations. The calculated strain demands can be quite sensitive to the moment gradient. they may not capture accurately the postyield and degrading response. By concentrating the plasticity in zero-length hinges with moment-rotation model parameters. element length. Uniaxial material models are defined to capture the nonlinear hysteretic axial stress-strain characteristics in the cross sections. the strains calculated from the finite elements can be difficult to interpret relative to acceptance criteria that are typically reported in terms of hinge rotations and deformations. The cross section parameters are then integrated numerically at discrete sections along the member length. such as strength degradation due to local buckling of steel reinforcing bars or flanges. where uniaxial material “fibers” are numerically integrated over the cross section to obtain stress resultants (axial force and moments) and incremental momentcurvature and axial force-strain relations. A simple check on the model capabilities Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 5 . • The finite length hinge model (Figure 2-1c) is an efficient distributed plasticity formulation with designated hinge zones at the member ends. Integration of deformations along the hinge length captures the spread of yielding more realistically than the concentrated hinges. On the other hand. where one can interrogate specific behavioral effects. • The fiber formulation (Figure 2-1d) models distribute plasticity by numerical integrations through the member cross sections and along the member length. but it also presents the most challenge in terms of model parameter calibration and computational resources. Note that while the detailed fiber and finite element models can simulate certain behavior more fundamentally. are difficult to capture without sophisticated and numerically intensive models. Concentrated and finite length hinge models (Figures 2-1a through Figure 2-1c) may consider the axial force-moment (P-M) interactions through yield surfaces (see Figure 2-2). Therefore. but instead report strains in the steel and concrete cross section fibers. some hinge elements with detailed moment-rotation hysteresis models (Figure 2-3) may not capture P-M interaction. integration method.
(a) Steel columns (b) Concrete walls and columns Figure 2-2 – Idealized axial-force-moment demands and strength interaction surfaces. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 6 . (a) Hysteretic model without deterioration (b) Model with stiffness degradation (c) Model with cyclic strength degradation (d) Model with fracture strength degradation (e) Model with post-capping gradual strength deterioration (f) Model with bond slip or crack closure (pinching) Figure 2-3 – Types of hysteretic modeling.
For nonlinear static analysis. and acceptance criteria. and backbone curves derived from cyclic envelopes are typically based on standardized loading protocols. the nonlinear component models should be defined based on the degraded cyclic envelope. the choice of component curves depends on how cyclic degradation is modeled. Direct modeling of cyclic degradation begins with a monotonic backbone curve and degrades this relationship as the analysis proceeds (Ibarra et al. shear effects must be considered in the analysis model in addition to flexural and axial load effects. For nonlinear dynamic analysis. which is typically required in capacity design provisions for seismic design. and the cyclic envelope encloses the forces and displacements under cyclic loading. Figure 2-5 – Idealized model backbone curves derived from monotonic and cyclic envelope curves (PEER/ATC 2010). 2005). it is important to distinguish between so-called “monotonic” and “cyclic envelope” curves. it uses the cyclic envelope (with an implied amount of cyclic degradation) to define the component backbone curve in analysis.is to analyze a concrete column under a low and high value of axial load (above and below the compression failure balance point) to examine whether the model tracks how the axial load affects the differences in rotation capacity and post-peak degradation. Indirect modeling does not degrade the component backbone curve. A further check would be to vary the axial loading during the analysis to see how well the effect of the changing axial load is captured. the cyclic envelope varies depending on the applied cyclic loading history. the member shear strength must be larger than the flexural strength. To develop flexural mechanisms. For use in nonlinear analysis. A fairly straightforward way Sidebar 4 Monotonic Versus Cyclic Envelope Curve ASCE 41 and other documents provide standardized backbone relationships (Figure 2-7) between characteristic forces and deformations of structural components to define component behavior. Instead. where the cyclic effects of earthquake loading are not modeled directly in the analysis. the nonlinear analysis should be exercised under cyclic loading to ensure that the model can represent the degradation observed in tests and implied by model parameters in ASCE 41 or other sources. demand parameters. Whichever technique is used (direct or indirect). (a) Cyclic versus monotonic results (b) Monotonic and cyclic envelope curves (ASCE 2007) Figure 2-4 – Load versus displacement data from wood shear walls. As shown below (Figures 2-4 and 2-5). Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 7 . Where the shear strength is not sufficient to preclude shear yielding and failure (such as in some existing buildings). The monotonic curve represents the response that would be observed for a component tested under monotonic loading.
or other phenomena. infills. diaphragms. 2. in-cycle degradation is the loss in strength that occurs under increasing deformations within one loading excursion of a cycle or under monotonic loading. shear walls. peak strength (point C). the initial stiffness. Referring to Figure 2-7. shear. most components experience both types of degradation. In-cycle degradation in reinforced concrete and masonry components is generally due to concrete crushing. crushing. bond slip. Under large inelastic cyclic deformations. the Bauschinger effect (in metals). which can ultimately lead to collapse. In steel components. Cyclic degradation is an apparent loss in strength at a given deformation level under reverse cyclic loading that occurs due to concrete cracking. not in the same loading cycle Strength loss occurs during the loading cycle Cyclic strength degradation In-cycle strength degradation Figure 2-6 – Cyclic versus in-cycle degradation (FEMA 2005). Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 8 . bond slip. and energy dissipation components of moment frames. considering influences of cyclic loading and interaction of axial. Shown in Figure 2-7 is an idealized force versus deformation relationship as defined in ASCE 41 for specifying the force and deformation parameters of nonlinear component models. While ASCE 41 typically provides specific values to Sidebar 5 Cyclic Versus In-cycle Degradation Hysteretic models used for nonlinear dynamic analysis should distinguish and account for “cyclic” versus “in-cycle” degradation of strength and stiffness. and foundations. The cyclic envelope and monotonic backbone curves are similar in that each includes four important points of strength and associated deformation. On the other hand. etc. shear failure. in-cycle degradation occurs due to local and/or lateral torsional buckling and rupture or fracture of steel. braced frames. and deformation limits in steel. In-cycle degradation displays a negative post-yield stiffness. and ultimate deformation (point E). Under continued loading in one direction. masonry and wood members. these points include: effective yield (point B). strength. base isolators. the model can simulate most regular materials and devices experiencing hysteretic behavior (Ibarra et al. In practice. FEMA 2009a). residual strength (point D). local buckling. If such degradations are included through appropriate modifiers to the stiffness and internal forces. See FEMA 440. the force-deformation relationship is intended to represent the cyclic envelope that reflects strength degradation due to cyclic loading (Sidebar 4). and post-yield forcedisplacement response of cross sections should be determined based on principles of mechanics and/or experimental data. Strength loss occurs in subsequent cycles. and flexural effects. In ASCE 41. and splice failures. 2005. component strengths often deteriorate (Figure 2-3) due to fracture.3 Model Parameters for Cyclic Loading In modeling the hysteretic properties of actual elements for analysis. buckling or fracture of reinforcement. ASCE 41 provides guidelines for estimation of stiffness. the observed strength loss under cyclic loading is recovered at larger deformations. Studies have shown that in-cycle degradation is more damaging and contributes to so-called ratcheting behavior under dynamic loading. This is in contrast to the monotonic curve that represents the response under monotonic loading.to model shear effects is by adding a nonlinear shear spring in series with the axial-flexural model. reinforced concrete. strength.
dynamic instability. and provided that members conform to the slenderness limits for special systems in high seismic regions (e. In buildings subjected to earthquakes. ratcheting (a gradual build up of residual deformations under cyclic loading). Figure 2-7 – Generalized force-deformation curve (PEER/ATC 2010). combined with the fact that in practice there is rarely enough data to accurately characterize the difference. With the increase of internal forces. These geometric nonlinear effects are typically distinguished between P-d effects. and appropriate P-D analysis techniques should be introduced in the structural model (Wilson 2002.5 Characterization of Model Parameters and Uncertainties Variability in calculated demand parameters arises due to uncertainties in the input ground motions and the nonlinear structural response to these motions (Sidebar 6). another important attribute of hysteretic models is whether they capture so-called “cyclic” versus “in-cycle” deterioration (Sidebar 5). As the usual approach in analysis is to obtain the most likely (expected) structural response. including allowance for live load reduction. the analyst should check that the software being used can represent the cyclic degradation of the backbone curve with appropriate hysteresis rules. Otherwise. special concrete or steel moment frames as defined in ASCE 7). If the gravity load is large the stiffness reduction (shown by the negative slope KN) is significant and contributes to loss of lateral resistance and instability.4 Geometric Nonlinear Effects Geometric nonlinear effects are caused by gravity loads acting on the deformed configuration of the structure. and 2. P-d effects do not generally need to be modeled in nonlinear seismic analysis. causing a decrease in the effective lateral stiffness. This means that the gravity loads of the entire building must be present in the analysis. the descending slope between point C and D is less well defined. PEER/ATC 72-1 or other sources.g. then it is reasonable to use either median or mean values to establish the parameters of the analysis model. in most cases it is appropriate to define modeling parameters to reproduce component cyclic envelope curves for tests or published criteria in ASCE 41. In addition to distinctions between monotonic and cyclic response. Figure 2-8 – Force-deformation curve with and without the P-D effect (PEER/ATC 2010). FEMA 440A provides additional recommendations on this topic. leading to a reduction in the effective lateral strength. measured relative to the member chord. the structural properties used in the analysis model should be median values. measured between member ends and commonly associated with story drifts in buildings. Therefore the gravity loaddeformation (P-D) effect must be considered directly in the analysis. a smaller proportion of the structure’s capacity remains available to sustain lateral loads.. and E. whether static or dynamic. Large lateral deflections (D) magnify the internal force and moment demands. P-D effects are much more of a concern than P-d effects. it may be more reasonable to define the descending branch between point C and E (or to a point between D and E). leading to an increase of internal forces in members and connections. ASCE 7 specifies a gravity load combination of 1. For materials and members not documented in available literature. Powell 2010).0D + 0.5L. Since models that capture cyclic degradation of the backbone curve are not yet common in commercial analysis software. as this difference is small for most material and other model parameters. Shown in Figure 2-8 is an idealized base shear versus drift curve of a cantilever structure with and without P-D effects. The statistical variability in material parameters and model components generally follow a lognormal distribution. P-D effects must be modeled as they can ultimately lead to loss of lateral resistance. However. where D is the building dead load and L is the specified live load. as illustrated by the dashed line in the figure. This would include using median values of material properties and Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 9 . define points B. and P-D effects. 2. associated with deformations along the members. C. degradation of stiffness. Since in most cases the descending slope is more gradual than implied in Figure 2-7. On the other hand. which implies that the median and mean (expected) values are not the same. For nonlinear seismic analyses. strength and bond characteristics should be evaluated using principles of mechanics that are supported by test data.
it may not provide a complete description of the outcome of various combinations of choices of input parameters. However. component test data (such as the nonlinear hysteretic response data of a flexural hinge) to calibrate the analysis models. While the analysis program’s technical users manual is usually the best resource on the features and use of any software.. quasi-static cyclic tests should be run to confirm the nature of the hysteretic behavior. as compared to nonlinear or linear static analyses where the underlying uncertainties are masked by simplified analysis assumptions. analysts should build up experience of the software capabilities by performing analysis studies on problems of increasing scope and complexity. ASCE 41 and other standards provide guidance to relate minimum specified material properties to expected values. Beyond having confidence in the software capabilities and the appropriate modeling techniques. The variability is generally attributed to three main sources: (1) hazard uncertainty in the ground motion intensity. (2) ground motion uncertainty arising from frequency content and duration of a ground motions with a given intensity. etc. such as the spectral acceleration intensity calculated for a specified earthquake scenario or return period. beginning with element tests of simple cantilever models and building up to models that encompass features relevant to the types of structures being analyzed. effects of element mesh refinement and section discretization). Apart from the lack of necessary data to characterize fully the variability of the model parameters (standard deviations and correlations between multiple parameters). 2.g. even with nonlinear dynamic analyses it is practically impossible to calculate accurately the variability in demand parameters. the number of analyses required to determine the resulting variability is prohibitive for practical assessment of real structures. the calculated values of demand parameters are median (50th percentile) estimates. nonlinear analysis procedures are generally aimed at calculating the median (or mean) demands. In concept it is possible to quantify the corresponding variability in the calculated demands using techniques such as Monte Carlo simulation. However. for nonlinear analyses additional checks are necessary to help ensure that the calculated responses are realistic. and (iii) mathematical model representation of the actual behavior. The variability is usually largest for structural deformations and accelerations and lower in force-controlled components of capacity-designed structures where the forces are limited by the strengths of yielding members. Basic checks should be made to confirm that the strength and stiffness of the model is correct under lateral load. requiring training and experience to obtain reliable results. sensitivity tests with alternative input parameters. structural details. or the theoretical and practical limitations of different features. Considering all major sources of uncertainties. Further validations using published experimental tests can help build understanding and confidence in the nonlinear analysis software and alternative modeling decisions (e. the coefficients of variation in demand parameters are on the order of 0.Sidebar 6 Uncertainties in Seismic Assessment The total variability in earthquake-induced demands is large and difficult to quantify.g. Therefore.8 and generally increase with ground motion intensity. Checks begin with basic items necessary for any analysis. By using median or mean values for a given earthquake intensity.. Therefore. it is essential to check the accuracy of models developed for a specific project. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 10 . geometry. Uncertainties in the evaluation are then accounted for (1) through the choice of the specified hazard level (return period) at which the analysis is run. e. nonlinear dynamic analyses reduce uncertainty in demand predictions. Next.6 Quality Assurance Nonlinear analysis software is highly sophisticated.. and (3) structural behavior and modeling uncertainties arising from the variability in (i) physical attributes of the structure such as material properties.5 to 0. AISC 341 (AISC 2010) specifies Ry values to relate expected to minimum specified material strengths. Through realistic modeling of the underlying mechanics. and evaluation of cyclic versus in-cycle degradation (Sidebar 5). (ii) nonlinear behavior of the structural components and system. Separate factors or procedures are sometimes applied to check acceptance criteria for forcecontrolled or other capacity designed components. complete characterization of modeling uncertainty is a formidable problem for real building structures. However. Sidebar 7 gives some suggestions in this regard. and/or (2) the specified acceptance criteria to which the demands are compared.
Calculate the displacements at key positions and the base shear and overturning moment and compare to the elastic analysis results. and overturning moment and compare to the results of elastic and nonlinear static analyses. • Perform nonlinear dynamic analyses and calculate the median values of displacements. Check that they are consistent and note the variability between records. • Generate the elastic (displacement) response spectra of the input ground motion records. and look for patterns in the demand parameters.. Vary selected input or control parameters (similar to the variations applied in the static nonlinear analyses) and compare to each other and to the static pushover and elastic analyses. Check for spurious local modes that may be due to incorrect element properties. and calculate the displacements at key positions and the elastic base shear and overturning moment.g. • Perform nonlinear static analyses to the target displacements for the median spectrum of the ground motion record set. the following are suggested checks to help ensure the accuracy of nonlinear analysis models for calculating earthquake demand parameters: • Check the elastic modes of model. or incorrect mass definitions.g. with and without P-D. base shear. preliminary structural models) and that the sequence of modes is logical. variations in component strengths or deformation capacities) and confirm observed trends in the response. Determine the median spectrum of the records and the variability about the median. Vary selected input or control parameters (e. inadequate restraints. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 11 . Compare the response spectrum results to the median of the dynamic analysis results. Plot hysteresis responses of selected components to confirm that they look realistic.. • Check the total mass of the model and that the effective masses of the first few modes in each direction are realistic and account for most of the total mass. different loading patterns. Ensure that the first mode periods for the translational axes and for rotation are consistent with expectation (e. • Perform elastic response spectrum (using the median spectrum of the record set) and dynamic response history analyses of the model.Sidebar 7 Quality Assurance of Building Analysis Models Beyond familiarizing oneself with the capabilities of a specific software package. hand calculation. including the distribution of deformations and spot checks of equilibrium.
Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 12 . For systems that employ “special” moment frame capacity design principles. that the minimum design provisions of ASCE 7 and the underlying AISC 341 (2010) and ACI 318 (2008) standards for special moment frames do not always prevent hinging in the columns or inelastic panel zone deformations in beam-to-column joints. unless the actual demand-capacity ratios are small enough to prevent them. where the hinging locations are known and behavior is ductile. It is important to recognize. which can be calibrated to capture the overall force-deformation (or moment-rotation) response.1. however. as defined in ASCE 7. Thus. Depending on the specific software implementation. The NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Briefs by Moehle et al. In steel structures.1 Moment Frames (Flexural Beam-Columns) Inelastic modeling of moment frame systems primarily involves component models for flexural members (beams and columns) and their connections. inelastic effects may occur in other locations. equivalent barspring assemblies. such as in ASCE 41 and PEER/ATC 72-1. including post-peak degradation. the finite-size joint panel may be modeled using kinematic constraint equations. due to the bond slip of longitudinal beam and column bars in the joint region. and expected behavior for special concrete and steel moment frames. the inelastic deformations in the beams and columns are coupled with the panel zone behavior. their ability may be limited to capture degradation associated with bond slip in concrete joints and local buckling and fracture of steel reinforcing bars and steel members. these yielding regions (beam. and panel zone (Figure 3-1a) can each be modeled through the idealized springs. Whatever the model type. columns. including hinging with P-M interaction and joint panel zone yielding. ASCE 2007). (2008) and Hamburger et al. Concentrated hinge models. The inelastic response of flexural beams and columns is often linked to the response of the connections and joint panels between them. Beam-columns are commonly modeled using either concentrated hinges or fiber-type elements. criteria. including member shear yielding. or approximate rigid end offsets (Charney and Marshall 2006. it is relatively straightforward to capture the response by nonlinear analysis. in concrete frames. and panel zone) tend to deform independently. connections. shown in Figure 3-1b (or equivalent fiber models). the analysis should be capable of reproducing (under cyclic loading) the component cyclic envelope curves that are similar to those from tests or other published criteria. column. connection failure. (2009) provide a summary of design concepts. 3. and member instabilities due to local or lateral-torsional buckling. On the other hand. Therefore. the inelastic deformations should primarily occur in flexural hinges in the beams and the column bases. except insofar as the strength of one component may limit the maximum forces in an adjacent component. This would generally encompass (a) Hinging region of beams and columns and deformable panel zone (b) Idealized analysis model Figure 3-1 – Beam to column connection.3. While the fiber elements generally enable more accurate modeling of the initiation of inelastic effects (steel yielding and concrete cracking) and spread of yielding. are often more practical. connections.1. for concrete frames. Modeling of Structural Components 3. The inelastic behavior in the beams. along with appropriate consideration of finite panel size and how its deformations affect the connected members. Steel Moment Frames For steel frames that employ special seismic design and detailing. In frames that do not meet special moment frame requirements of ASCE 7. the nonlinear model should include these effects. the flexural hinge parameters should consider how the deformations due to bond slip are accounted for – either in the beam and column hinges or the joint panel spring.
Tang and Goel 1989. Frames with members that are susceptible to sudden shear failures or splice failures are more challenging to model. Otherwise. This type of element is simple to use. which capture yielding.frames that conform to the special moment frame requirements of ASCE 7 and AISC 341 (Hamburger et al. tested under a cyclic loading protocol. nonlinear flexural models can be used to track response only up to the point where imposed shear force and/ or splice force equals their respective strengths.. Similarly. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 13 . shown in Figure 3-2 is the hysteretic plot and photo of a steel brace. which then trigger fracture during subsequent tension cycles. In the most fundamental (a) Measured axial force-deformation (b) Experimental set-up Figure 3-2 – Nonlinear response of axial brace (Fell et al. provided that the beam/connection hinge ductility is reduced to account for potential fractures at the beam-to-column connection. There are several alternatives for modeling the nonlinear buckling response of braces. frames with partially restrained connections can be modeled.S. Uriz and Mahin 2008).2 Concrete Moment Frames Concrete frames that meet seismic design and detailing requirements and qualify as special moment frames are somewhat more difficult to model than steel frames. combined with the fact that the inelastic rotation capacity of slender members is small. Lowes and Altoontash (2003) and Ghobarah and Biddah (1999) provide further details on modeling concrete beam-column joints. to simulate further response. can be analyzed with similar models. As indicated. Compression buckling typically leads to a concentration of flexural hinging at the mid-point of the brace. and the postyield response of columns and joint panels is sensitive to axial load.1. generally makes it less advantageous to use inelastic analysis for the design of steel frames with slender members. but as the cases covered are limited. one would need to look to other sources for data to establish models and criteria for frames with slender and otherwise non-conforming members. 2009). designed in high seismic regions of the Western U. Frames that do not conform to the special seismic detailing but have behavior that is dominated by flexural hinging can also be modeled. local buckling.2 Braced Frames Modeling of inelastic brace behavior is complicated by the interactive effects of yielding. For steel frames composed of members with slender section properties and/or long unbraced lengths. and fracture. the brace is represented by a uniaxial phenomenological spring to capture brace yielding and overall buckling (e. provided the number of elements along the length of the brace is adequate. where under increased deformations local buckles form. provided that the hinge properties and acceptance criteria are adjusted to account for their limited ductility. For example. overall member buckling. inelastic member hinge properties. nonlinear modeling is significantly more challenging due to the likelihood of local flange or web buckling and lateral-torsional buckling. Stiffness of members is sensitive to concrete cracking. ASCE 41 (including supplement 1) and PEER/ATC 72-1 provide models and guidance for characterizing member stiffness. Local buckling and fracture can be inferred from the plastic rotation and strains in the hinges (Uriz and Mahin 2008). according to older building code provisions. ASCE 41 provides some criteria for seismically non-conforming steel members. 3. This. overall buckling. the compression behavior is dominated by global buckling with rapid drop off in strength and recovery of the tensile yield strength upon reloading. though its reliability is more limited by the range of tests to which it is calibrated. with appropriate adjustments to simulate the nonlinear moment-rotation behavior of connections. and concentration of plastic rotations in the buckled hinge. and strategies for joint modeling. In an alternative model.g. 2010). Existing “pre-Northridge” moment frames. the analysis would need to capture the sudden degradation due to shear and splice failures. the joints are affected by concrete cracking and bond slip. In such cases. A commonly employed approach is to model the brace with fiber beam-column elements. 3.
Alternatively.1 % of the member length. can be inferred from the AISC 341 qualification testing requirements for buckling restrained braces. where the capacity is limited by the shear strength of the mortar. unless positive anchorage capable of transmitting in-plane forces from frame members to all masonry wythes is provided on all sides of the walls. sometimes in combination with one of the other modes. buckling-restrained braces are straightforward to model with uniaxial nonlinear springs. and lowcycle fatigue endurance data are generally available from the brace manufacturers.. For either the shear sliding or compression crushing mode. requires calibration with test data to determine the appropriate number of elements. phenomenological axial spring models. but it presents challenges both in terms of computational demands and constitutive modeling of the infill and boundary interface.2. Madan et al. if the panel is strong in shear. members. 2010). described as a function of axial brace displacements. and an equivalent width which may be calculated using the recommendations given in the concrete and masonry chapters of ASCE 41. For braces with compact sections as specified by AISC 341. or finite element models. it is reasonable to analyze frames with infills using a single equivalent strut or two diagonal compression struts for reversed cyclic loading analysis. (1997) provides an example of a more advanced series spring strut model. Depending on their height-to-thickness slenderness. the brace is modeled with continuum finite elements which can directly simulate yielding. Such an approach is adopted by FEMA 306 (FEMA 2009b) and ASCE 41. and they may result in either column or beam shear failures. cyclic strain hardening. the diagonal strut will crush near the frame joint and lose strength. 3. and local buckling (Schachter and Reinhorn 2007). based on peak deformations and cumulative deformations. (2) initial geometric imperfection amplitude of 0. Figure 3-3 – Masonry infill wall panel and model. In most cases. Detailed finite element analysis can also be used if such a refinement is required. and (3) ten to fifteen layers (fibers) through the cross section depth. The axial-flexural fiber model. the spring strength should be based on the governing failure mode (sliding or compression failure).analysis approach. frames with infill walls are commonly encountered in existing buildings around the world and in regions of low to moderate seismicity of the U. 3. amplitude of initial out-ofstraightness imperfections. ASCE 41 provides acceptance criteria. Bi-linear force-deformation models are sufficiently accurate to capture the behavior. With appropriate material formulation. unreinforced infill walls can also fail out-of-plane. The large panel forces generated in this mode will be distributed along the beam and column Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 14 . Kadysiewski and Mosalam (2009) provides a modeling approach that considers both in-plane and out-ofplane failure. the infill panel failure will initiate in sliding along the horizontal joints. Only the masonry wythes in full contact with the frame elements should be considered when computing in-plane stiffness. This mode of failure has limited deformation capacity because the crushing will be abrupt. Modeling of the equivalent diagonal strut requires knowledge of the stiffness and cyclic strength behavior. local buckling is usually delayed enough to be insignificant until large deformations (story drifts on the order of 2 % to 4 %.05 % to 0. which captures the combined behavior of diagonal sliding shear and compression failure.1 Buckling-Restrained Braces In contrast to conventional braces. overall buckling. Yield strength.S. the finite element models can also simulate fracture initiation (Fell et al. and material hardening parameters. The infill wall system is conventionally modeled as a frame structure with beams and columns braced with one or two diagonal struts representing the masonry infill (Figure 3-3). Uriz and Mahin (2008) found that the fiber approach gave reasonable results for the following model parameters: (1) brace subdivided into two or four elements. which provides a good compromise between modeling rigor and computational demands.3 Infill Walls and Panels Although not widely employed for new construction in high seismic regions of the U. depending on the brace compactness and slenderness). the diagonal length. The equivalent strut is represented by the actual infill thickness that is in contact with the frame. For software that supports use of a single axial spring. Acceptance criteria for the brace elements. including cyclic deterioration. which can be obtained from the fiber-type beam-column models.S.
the fiber wall models can capture with reasonable accuracy the variation of axial and flexural stiffness due to concrete cracking and steel yielding under varying axial and bending loads. considering axial and shear forces in the hinge. Therefore.g. I. ASCE 41 and PEER/ATC 72-1 provide guidance on effective stiffness parameters that account for flexural and shear cracking to handle typical cases (i.4. the number of elements over the hinge length will impact the effective gage length of the calculated strains. (3) rebar fracture on straightening of buckle. The fiber idealization can be implemented in the shell elements to integrate through the cross section for axial/flexural effects. however these failure modes are generally reflected in the backbone curves.3.. The following points should be noted: • The lumped hinge models are only suitable for assessing performance within such allowable plastic hinge rotation limits as stable hysteresis occurs. Ductile flexural behavior with stable hysteresis can develop up to hinge rotation limits that are a function of axial load and shear in the hinge region. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 15 .4 Shear Walls Reinforced concrete shear walls are commonly employed in seismic lateral-force-resisting systems for buildings. Some of these failure modes can be captured. and gravity stresses). These failure modes include (1) rebar bond failure and lap splice slip. Nearby walls are often connected by coupling beams for greater structural efficiency where large openings for doorways are required. A principal limitation of conventional beam-column element fiber formulations is the assumption that plane sections remain plane.e. perform in a similar manner to reinforced concrete beam-columns. considering variability in the shear demands and capacities. • The flexural strength may be estimated by the nominal strength provisions of ACI 318 using expected material properties and taking account of the axial load. where the wall cross section is discretized into a number of concrete and steel fibers. and studies have shown (PEER/ATC 72-1) that standard seismic design criteria may underestimate the actual shear force demands. wall proportions. hysteresis rules. but this is not possible in circumstances such as (1) short walls with high shear-to-flexure ratios that are susceptible to shear failures. particularly if the wall system is subjected to torsion. Subject to the cautions noted below. it is desirable to achieve ductile flexural behavior. and loss of confinement. it is best to perform the analysis to determine the shear force demands and then to design the wall to resist these demands. coupled shear walls) a P-M interaction surface (Figure 2-2) should be used rather than a constant flexural strength.or T-shaped in plan) and larger three dimensional assemblies such as building cores. • Shear failure should be prevented in slender shear walls. Since shear strength varies with applied axial stress (which varies during an earthquake in coupled shear walls) it may be necessary to check the design at multiple time steps during nonlinear dynamic analyses. and performance criteria adopted in lumped plasticity models. In particular. The number of elements required across a wall segment width and over the wall height depends on the available element types.1 Modeling of Slender Walls Slender concrete shear walls detailed to current seismic design requirements. planar walls with typical reinforcement. and designed with sufficient shear strength to avoid shear failures. • Beam-column elements are more problematic to use in three-dimensional wall configurations with significant bi-directional interaction. (2) bearing walls with high axial stress and/or inadequate confinement that are susceptible to compression failures. such that shear lag effects associated with flexure and warping torsion are not captured. rebar buckling. In general. They may take the form of isolated planar walls. either explicitly or implicitly.. the wall proportions. This limitation may be alleviated through formulations that model the wall with two-dimensional shelltype finite elements. simple slender walls (including coupled walls) can be modeled as vertical beamcolumn elements with lumped flexural plastic hinges at the ends with reasonable accuracy and computational efficiency. and (4) combined shear and compression failure at wall toe. and (3) in existing buildings without seismic design and detailing qualifying the wall system as special as defined in ASCE 7. having low axial stress. and the bending moment gradient. and equivalent flexural and shear stiffness must be specified for elastic elements outside of the hinge. Fiber-type models are commonly employed to model slender walls. Where the axial load varies significantly during loading (e. The modeling parameters and plastic rotation limits of ASCE 41 may be used for guidance. With appropriate material nonlinear axial stress-strain characteristics. flanged walls (often C-. (2) concrete spalling. in fiber and finite element type modeling approaches. 3. • Nonlinearity only arises at the designated hinge(s). These effects may be significant in non-planar core wall configurations. but in-plane shear is uncoupled and remains elastic. Cyclic and shake table tests on reinforced concrete shear walls reveal a number of potential failure modes that simple models cannot represent explicitly. The seismic behavior of shear walls is often distinguished between slender (ductile flexure governed) or squat (shear governed) according to the governing mode of yielding and failure.
which is easier to model. In general the analysis captures the overall behavior well. Otherwise. In comparison. The seismic demands on coupling beams are usually high. This example highlights the difficulty in capturing degradation due to localized damage. to account for the lower span-to-depth ratios and greater longitudinal bar strain penetration (bond slip at the end anchorage into the concrete walls) of the coupling beams as compared to conventional beams. Shown in Figure 3-4 are comparisons between tests and fiber shell-type analyses of a rectangular and T-shaped wall. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 16 . Features are available in some software platforms for advanced modeling of reinforced concrete using detailed two-dimensional shell or three-dimensional solid elements with smeared or explicit representation of reinforcement and concrete cracking. Paulay and Priestley 1992) recommend lower effective (elastic) stiffness values for coupling beams. ASCE 41 provides hinge properties based on the shear force demand and reinforcing bar arrangement. tests show clearly that plane sections do not remain plane at the critical sections of walls at higher demand levels and that maximum (localized) concrete and reinforcing bar strains are under-predicted by conventional fiber beam-column element analyses.4. Users should refer to the technical reference of their analysis software for details of specific implementations and guidance on modeling walls. The detailed finite element models do not rely upon the plane sections remain plane assumption. however. The resulting concrete crushing and reinforcing bar buckling can be critical failure modes for walls carrying high compressive stress. Where coupling beam strength is governed by flexural hinging and/or where diagonal reinforcement is used. except for the T-shaped wall with the web in compression. For example. However. other sources (e. and for other situations where nonlinear stress and strain fields violate the assumptions of idealized hinge or fiber models. responses of the rectangular wall and of the T-shaped wall with the web in tension are governed by tensile yielding of the reinforcing bars. The coupling increases the stiffness and strength of such walls relative to the uncoupled situation. When the shear walls are modeled as beam-column line elements.2 Modeling Coupling Beams Coupled shear walls are commonly used to provide vertical shear transfer across door openings in walls or service cores. require greater expertise and computational resources and should be validated against test data that replicate the conditions being simulated. Well founded constitutive models can take account of load history effects in a more explicit manner than concentrated plasticity approaches with prescribed hysteretic rules. Such models are useful for assessment of walls where there is strong interaction between shear and flexure. and therefore they can better model situations with coupled inelastic flexural-shear behavior. where the beam strength is governed by shear failure. it is necessary to represent the width of the wall as a rigid horizontal beam (or constraint) in order to give the coupling beams the correct span. it is advisable to use a beam element with an inelastic shear spring.g.(a) Rectangular cross section (b) Tee-shaped cross section Figure 3-4 – Test versus fiber analysis hysteresis response for concrete shear walls (PEER/ATC 2010). ASCE 41 does not distinguish effective (elastic) stiffness values between coupling beams and other beams. Such models do. and it is common to adopt a diagonal reinforcement arrangement in order to maximize ductility and limit stiffness and strength degradation. coupling beams are usually modeled as concentrated plasticity flexural members with concentrated flexural hinges and equivalent (elastic) flexural and shear stiffness along the beam length. such as in flexural hinge regions where the shear force demand is close to the shear capacity. 3. In this case the discrepancy is attributed to the challenge in calculating concrete compressive strains and the associated concrete degradation..
the collector forces from dynamic analyses may be excessively large due to transient peaks. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers . 3 Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place Concrete Diaphragms. relative stiffness. 3. using finite elements.4. In this case the slab may be modeled with a coarse mesh. The stiffness of floor beams (with slabs acting as “flanges”) framing with gravity columns can sometimes significantly increase the lateral stiffness of a structure even if the beams are designed as gravity framing only. facilitate the calculation of their design forces? • Will the rigid diaphragm constraint that suppresses axial deformations in framing members in the plane of the diaphragm distort the structural behavior. The analysis model of the device should account for its dependence on loading rates. which can reproduce most observed features of behavior. and including them in the analysis can benefit the performance assessment of a design.5 Floors. Analysis with upper and lower bound stiffness can also be useful to determine the sensitivity of the calculated behavior to variability in diaphragm stiffness. Alternatively. Since concrete floor slabs may crack. If equivalent 17 3. and other interactions. and Collectors (Moehle et al. nonlinear finite element formulations (membrane or shell) may be used. These behaviors are not easily captured using beam-column or fiber-type elements. a nonlinear analysis model is required that can capture the forces. Floor diaphragms are often modeled as rigid. Chords. and Collectors Floor diaphragms and collectors should be modeled to realistically represent the distribution of inertia loads from floors to the other elements of the lateral system and the redistribution of lateral forces among different parts of lateral system due to changes in configuration. or other demand parameters for the devices. The following questions should be considered: • How does the stiffness of the diaphragm compare with that of the vertically oriented components. and present significant modeling challenges. In addition. The calculated forces and stresses of seismic collectors should be interpreted with care. and there is an argument (PEER/ATC 72-1) to design certain key diaphragms to remain essentially elastic as well. including consideration of slab cracking where diaphragm stresses are high? • Would explicit modeling of diaphragms and collectors as flexible. Alternatively. For further guidance on the analysis and design of reinforced concrete diaphragms refer to NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. (2) the demands induce significant cracking. where inelastic diaphragm effects are a major factor to the system behavior. and/ or (3) the slab is formed on profiled metal decking. and the stiffness and strength formulation of the beams in bending should include any desired interaction with the slab. sustained (gravity and other) loads. Monotonic tests show greater displacement ductility than can be relied upon in cyclic loading. where collectors are modeled as rigid (or very stiff elastic elements). However. A possible modeling technique is to include the grillage of primary floor beams and girders in the model as beam elements with two-dimensional shell or membrane elements to represent the in-plane stiffness of the diaphragm. which would be damped out by minor yielding of the collector elements or their connections. it is recommended to investigate the sensitivity of the calculated demand parameters by conducting analyses for the expected range of coupling beam and wall model parameters. In accordance with ASCE 7. detailed nonlinear reinforced concrete shell finite element formulations are available in some platforms. 2010) and PEER/ATC 72-1. and/ or relative strength. the rigid modeling assumption is not always appropriate or the most convenient for design. particularly when (1) the reinforcement ratios are low. though require careful calibration against test results.6 Energy Dissipating Devices Use of passive energy dissipation is an emerging technology that enhances building performance by reducing the demands through addition of damping devices and stiffening elements. the collectors should be designed with sufficient strength to remain essentially elastic under the forces induced from earthquakes. Some analysis platforms contain suitable formulations comprising inseries nonlinear shear and flexure springs. as this reduces the modeling and computational effort. Diaphragms. such as by eliminating the axial deformations of horizontal chords of braced lateral systems? The adopted modeling approach should make a realistic representation of the stiffness of the diaphragm and collectors and enable the force demands to be extracted for design. This assumption is acceptable in many cases when the stresses and force transfers in the diaphragms are low relative to the diaphragm strength.3 Modeling Squat Shear Walls Squat shear walls fail in shear rather than flexure. deformations. the assumed stiffnesses should be reviewed in the light of the induced stresses and updated as necessary. Membrane or shell finite elements in parallel with beams may take some of the “collector” force that a hand calculation would assign to the collector beam. temperature. linear stiffness parameters are used. 3.As with other cases where the model parameters are uncertain. In determining the seismic demand parameters. where degradation of stiffness and strength (with highly pinched hysteresis loops) is observed. Multiple analyses may be necessary to capture and bound the effects of varying mechanical characteristics of the devices. it is difficult to make exact predictions of stiffness.
and ASCE 41. Elastomeric isolators may be either bearings made of high-damping rubber or bearings with lowdamping rubber that have a lead core. related to such factors as the rate of loading. The variability of model parameters. and isolation systems may be composed of one or multiple types of isolators. Series spring models representing the device and the brace allow consideration of such interactions (Reinhorn et al. For further details about modeling of devices for nonlinear analyses and their effect in buildings. The models of actual devices may be slightly different than shown in Figure 3-5. with the friction level defined by the friction coefficient of the sliding surfaces and normal forces due to gravity and other loads acting on the isolator. radius of curvature and proportional to the weight supported by the isolator. While dampers generally follow the force-displacement relations shown in Figure 3-5. Constantinou et al. inversely proportional to the Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 18 . temperature dependence. (1991). The elastomeric bearings may be modeled similarly to the hysteretic spring model shown in Figure 3-5(d).7 Seismic Isolators Seismic isolators can be generally classified as either elastomeric or sliding. 3. 2009). Energy dissipation devices are usually modeled as combinations of dashpots and equivalent elastic or hysteretic springs. Constantinou et al. see Constantinou and Symans (1993). and longevity of devices life-cycle is extremely important in determining the response of base-isolated structures and should be accounted for by analyses under the expected range of isolator properties. Sliding isolators may be flat assemblies. The reader is directed to Nagarajaiah et al. with the initial stiffness determined by the shear stiffness of the rubber layers and the post-yielding stiffness defined by the characteristics of the rubber and/or lead plug. (1999).(a) Viscous (b) Visco-elastic (c) Friction (hysteretic) (d) General hysteretic Figure 3-5 – Idealized response plots of energy dissipation devices. such as the frictionpendulum system. The sliding isolators are modeled using the friction model shown in Figure 3-5(c). when employing nonlinear dependencies to deformations or velocities (such as for the nonlinear fluid dampers). Nonlinear analysis procedures should explicitly model the force-deflection properties of isolators. a post-sliding stiffness is assigned. ASCE 7. or have curved surfaces. these models should be modified to account for interactions with the braces (Charney et al. 2008). and Naeim and Kelly (1999) for design and modeling details and to ASCE 7 and ASCE 41 for suggested procedures to derive the model component properties. The resulting models incorporate one or more of the four main categories shown in Figure 3-5. For isolators with curved sliding surfaces. (1998). when assembled in structures using flexible diagonal braces.
There are two generic approaches to practical nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis: • The direct approach. For this reason. Soil-structure interaction analysis is also undertaken to realize substantial construction cost savings by reducing the conservatisms in the conventional approach. The behavior of soils is significantly nonlinear under strong ground shaking. and strain rate dependency. it is recommended that analyses are undertaken using upper and lower bounds of soil properties. complete loss of strength (liquefaction). making it difficult to model the transmission of earthquakeinduced stress and strain waves through the boundaries of the soil model. The structural designer inputs “free field” response spectra or ground motions directly to an analysis of the structure without any consideration of interaction and then designs the foundations for the resulting forces. in which a volume of soil is modeled explicitly with the structure and a “total” solution is obtained in a single analysis. 4. treatment of liquefiable soils in structural analysis is a significant challenge. Whereas various forms of transmitting boundaries have been devised for linear frequency domain analysis. However. Incorporation of foundation effects into structural-response prediction requires some basic understanding of soils and soil-structure interaction. Foundations and Soil-Structure Interaction 4. or soil liquefaction.2 Overview of Soil-Structure Analysis Issues Modeling of soil-structure interaction is dominated by the issues associated with the soil being an infinite medium. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 19 . a pile foundation in soft soils). • Where the structure is massive and its inertia forces significantly increase the strain levels in the soil relative to the free field response. energy dissipation through material hysteresis and radiation damping.1 Introduction and Overview of Soil Behavior For many projects the effect of site soils is dealt with independently of the structure. a high degree of uncertainty in behavior of the soils will remain. Sidebar 8 When to Include Soil-Structure Interaction in Analysis In most cases ignoring soil-structure interaction is conservative. • The indirect (substructure) approach in which the analysis is performed in two stages: (1) The effective input motions seen by the structure are derived by consideration of the incoming seismic waves and the geometry of the foundation (kinematic interaction). softening. • Where the site conditions are susceptible to large ground deformations. provided the design response spectra and ground motions adequately envelope the kinematic effect of the foundation structure and its effect on site response. lateral spreading or ground fault rupture. This is typically worthwhile on sites with relatively soft soils where: • The flexibility of the soil-foundation system significantly elongates the effective natural periods of the structure and increases the damping. e.. and lower bound properties may be critical for the design of the foundation. and soil materials display strain softening. Soils generally have no distinct yield point and exhibit gradual reduction of stiffness with increasing strain. in some cases this approach can give unrealistic results. no exact boundary formulations exist for nonlinear (time domain) dynamic analysis. where soil-structure interaction analysis is advisable to reduce risk: • The foundation system alters the soil properties (e. Certain types of soil (typically saturated sands and silts) can develop excess pore water pressure during earthquake shaking. While pore pressure generation and liquefaction models exist. resulting in reduced effective stress levels.. This may be difficult to do in cases such as the following.4. weakening and in the extreme.g. leading to reduced earthquake design forces. leading to foundations and superstructure designs that may be overly conservative or unconservative (Sidebar 8).g. and (2) The dynamic response of the structure is calculated by applying the motions to the structural model via a simplified representation of the foundation (inertial interaction). The upper bound soil stiffness and strength is usually more critical for the demands on the structure itself. This issue is compounded for sites where the soil properties vary significantly with depth. Even if a detailed geotechnical investigation is available. • Buildings with a deep basement or pile foundation system where it is difficult to determine the effective ground excitation and where the structural inertia forces are dependent on the foundation reaction with the soil.
A typical model is shown in Figure 4-2. Figure 4-2 – Soil structure interaction . If a simpler (e. 4. The properties of the spring damper pairs may be based on (1) analytical and numerical solutions for rigid bodies sitting on or embedded in an elastic halfspace (Wolf 1985. are modeled explicitly. The medium beneath the lower boundary of the model is modeled as grounded linear viscous dampers.. Figure 4-1 – Soil structure interaction . Werkle and Waas 1986). Note that the number of springdamper pairs may be larger than shown in the figure. based on expected strain level. Since forces in the soil dampers may be large.direct approach.indirect approach. The horizontal dimension of the soil block should be sufficiently large such that the motion at the nodes of the lateral boundaries can be considered as that of the free-field. This is done to prevent spurious stress wave reflection at the lower boundary. The ground motions (including spatial variability.3 Direct Approach in the Time Domain The direct approach is described first since it is more intuitive. If the soil resistance is represented by springs having gradual strain softening. the initial stiffness characteristics may be based upon small strain soil moduli. or (2) alternatively by numerical frequency domain analysis.4 Indirect Approach In the indirect approach. bilinear) spring is used. In either case a strength cap equal to the expected ultimate resistance should be introduced. either as a rotational spring or multiple axial springs. soil properties. then a representative elastic stiffness. depending on (1) whether the foundation is modeled as rigid or flexible.4. although the computational modeling requirements are more advanced. and (2) how rocking is represented. the strength limit (say in foundation sliding) should be applied to the combined spring-damper force. The free-field ground motion histories are applied to the lateral boundaries. when significant) are applied at special boundaries at the base and sides of the model. As shown in Figure 4-1. and proximity of boundaries to the structure. should be used. and the kinematic interaction is modeled directly. It is advisable to test the sensitivity of the model to the finite element mesh density. the dynamic compliances of the soil domain are represented as spring-damper pairs for each degree of freedom of the foundation being considered. in this approach the soil is discretized using solid (brick) nonlinear finite elements (or finite difference elements) and the structure and the structural foundation system. where the ground motion time history is applied (as an acceleration or velocity history) to the “far end” of the spring-damper pair. to which the desired ‘bedrock’ ground motions are induced via applied force history.g. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 20 . which may be flexible and nonlinear.
5. the nonlinear static procedure defines force. The three modification coefficients (1) scale the spectral displacement to the control point displacement. the two most prevalent being the so-called “coefficient method” and the “capacity spectrum method” (FEMA 2005). or irregular buildings. Chapters 4 through 8 of ASCE 41 specify component modeling Figure 5-1 – Idealized static pushover backbone curve (FEMA 2005). slender. the structural model is subjected to an incremental lateral load whose distribution represents the inertia forces expected during ground shaking. The analysis is conducted until the displacement at the control point reaches the target displacement. and Outcome The nonlinear stiffness and strength of the components are modeled based on a cyclic envelope curve. where the response is dominated by the fundamental sway mode of vibration. prior to the incremental lateral load. The pushover curve can be further simplified by idealized sloping branches of elastic.” which represents the displacement demand that the earthquake ground motions would impose on the structure. which implicitly accounts for degradation due to cyclic loading that is expected under earthquakes. Once loaded to the target displacement. FEMA 440A also provides guidance on how to conduct simplified nonlinear dynamic analyses on a structure-specific basis to reduce the uncertainty in the calculated target displacement. typically at the roof level.4 Acceptability Criteria and Performance Evaluation At a given target displacement. FEMA 440 and 440A describe how the idealized pushover curve has been used in simplfied nonlinear dynamic analyses to establish minimum strength criteria for lateral 5. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 21 . usually proportional to the floor masses and the modal shape of the fundamental mode. FEMA 2005). and the second a check for overall stability. (2) adjust for inelastic effects as a function of the ratio of elastic force demands to the structural strength.2 Analysis Methods. However. A control point is defined for the target displacement. dynamic instability. The intersection of the pushover curve with the capacity spectrum curve defines the target displacement (or performance point). usually at the top (roof level) of the structure. deformation. It is less suitable for taller. The alternative capacity spectrum method employs the concepts of equivalent linearization whereby an effective period of vibration and equivalent viscous damping are determined from the pushover curve. The plot of the resulting base shear force as a function of the control point (roof) displacement is often recognized as the “pushover curve” of the structure. one dealing with local component checks for force-controlled or deformation-controlled components. and (3) adjust for hysteretic stiffness and strength degradation. the demand parameters for the structural components are compared with the respective acceptance criteria for the desired performance state. so as to capture the effects of gravityinduced forces and P-∆ effects on component yielding and the post-peak response. Modeling. or ductility demands in the structural components. 5.3 Calculation of Seismic Demand The total gravity load should be applied first. 5. and used to examine overall building performance. as shown in Figure 5-1. See Sidebar 9 for further discussion on the applicability of nonlinear static analysis. the target displacement is determined using the coefficient method as the product of the elastic spectral displacement and three modification factors. Loads are applied at nodes where dynamic inertia forces would develop. The nonlinear static procedure is applicable to lowrise regular buildings. The local checks are defined by comparing the calculated demands to the component acceptance criteria. where multiple vibration modes affect the behavior. Requirements for Nonlinear Static Analysis 5. In ASCE 41. post-yield hardening and softening (degrading) behavior. relative to the default method in ASCE 41. ASCE 41 defines two acceptability criteria. may also be checked.1 Basis for the Analysis In the nonlinear static procedure. The elastic spectral displacement is expressed as a function of the elastic spectral acceleration and the effective period. such as story drifts and base shears. studies have shown that those do little to improve the accuracy of the nonlinear static procedure (ASCE 2007. and they are monotonically increased without load reversals. System level demand parameters. The lateral load is applied until the imposed displacements reach the so-called “target displacement. Several methods are available for calculating the target displacement. and pinching. The lateral load distribution should reflect the expected inertia forces at the floor levels. Other lateral force distributions may be used to further interrogate the response.
One way to check this is by comparing the deformed geometry from a pushover analysis to the elastic first-mode vibration shape. nonlinear static analysis can be an effective design tool to investigate aspects of the analysis model and the nonlinear response that are difficult to do by nonlinear dynamic analysis. Nonlinear static analysis is limited in its ability to capture transient dynamic behavior with cyclic loading and degradation. The strength criteria in ASCE 41 often refer to the underlying industry design standards for detailed information on material properties and the calculation of component strengths. concrete. walls. which is more accurate and less conservative than the limit in ASCE 41 and FEMA 440. and other structural components made of steel. and NIST (2010) provide further details on the simplifying assumptions and limitations on nonlinear static analysis. diaphragms. However. and masonry. In general. More recently. a revised dynamic instability criterion has been proposed in FEMA 440A.parameters and acceptance criteria for foundations. FEMA 440A. and (3) investigate alternative design parameters and how variations in the component properties may affect response. FEMA 440. thereby. provide more reliable assessment of earthquake performance than nonlinear static analysis. reflecting the influence of P-∆ effects and post-peak negative stiffness in the structural components (Figure 5-1). even when the nonlinear static procedure is not appropriate for a complete performance evaluation. (2) augment understanding of the yielding mechanisms and deformation demands. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 22 . The dynamic instability criterion of ASCE 41 is the same as one developed in FEMA 440. the nonlinear static procedure provides a convenient and fairly reliable method for structures whose dynamic response is governed by first-mode sway motions. For example. nonlinear static analysis can be useful to (1) check and debug the nonlinear analysis model. wood. Sidebar 9 Nonlinear Static Versus Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Nonlinear dynamic analysis methods generally provide more realistic models of structural response to strong ground shaking and. the nonlinear static procedure works well for low-rise buildings (less than about five stories) with symmetrical regular configurations. The global dynamic instability check limits the magnitude of the inelastic strength reduction factor. frames. Nevertheless.
equivalent viscous damping is associated with the reduction in vibrations through energy dissipation other than that which is calculated directly by the nonlinear hysteresis in the modeled elements. dynamic analyses for multiple ground motions are necessary to calculate statistically robust values of the demand parameters for a given ground motion intensity or earthquake scenario. Limitations. including self weight of the building plus some allowance for contents.. The dynamic response is calculated for input earthquake ground motions.. 23 6. and (3) the foundation and soil (if these are not modeled otherwise). the damping matrix is formulated by specifying values of critical damping for one or more vibration modes. This so-called inherent damping occurs principally in (1) structural components that are treated as elastic but where small inelastic cracking or yielding occurs.2T and 1. The equivalent viscous damping is included through the [C] term in the equation of motion. Vertical inertial effects (i. For example. 6. e.e. Otherwise. and (2) how can the terms of the damping matrix be formulated to achieve that value. including rotation about the vertical building axis. the influence of the code-specified vertical earthquake load. Requirements for Nonlinear Dynamics Analysis 6.g. it is subject to fewer limitations than nonlinear static procedure. such as partition walls.6. Alternatively.1 seconds or larger). where the proportionality factors am and ak can be chosen to provide a defined percentage of critical damping at two specific periods of vibration. arena roofs or long-span floor systems.. will tend to capture hysteretic energy dissipation at lower deformations than lumped plasticity (hinge) models. (2) the architectural cladding. the nonlinear dynamic procedure explicitly simulates hysteretic energy dissipation in the nonlinear range. rather than as inherent damping. The amount of inherent viscous damping requires careful consideration of the available sources of energy dissipation and whether these are otherwise captured in the analysis.2 Modeling of Inertial Mass and Gravity Load The inertial mass should be the expected mass. the Ev factor in ASCE 7. Gravity loads (defined and factored per ASCE 7) should be included in the dynamic analyses.3 Modeling of Damping Effects In the context of the nonlinear dynamic procedure. the damping matrix [C] is calculated as a linear combination of the mass and stiffness matrix ([C]=am[M]+ak[K]). partitions. and finishes. where the vertical period of vibration is in the range that may be excited by the vertical component of earthquake ground motions (periods on the order of 0. In the commonly employed Rayleigh damping formulation. vertical mass and ground motion components) should be modeled for buildings with long-span framing. where T is the fundamental period of vibration of the structure.. In modal damping formulations.g. whereby the gravity loads are applied first and then held constant while the earthquake ground motions are applied. fiber-type component models. using information about the mode shapes and vibration periods. e. friction. so as to account for their Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers . where the inelastic hysteresis does not initiate until the demand exceeds the modeled yield strength of the member. Special energy dissipation components (e. Only the damping in the linear range and other non-modeled energy dissipation need to be added as viscous damping. the accuracy of the results depends on the details of the analysis model and how faithfully it captures the significant behavioral effects. However. Acceptance criteria typically limit the maximum structural component deformations to values where degradation is controlled and the nonlinear dynamic analysis models are reliable. the damping effects of specific components. which capture the initiation and spread of yielding through the cross section and along the member lengths.1 Basis. As nonlinear dynamic analysis involves fewer assumptions than the nonlinear static procedure. and Outcome for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis In contrast to the nonlinear static procedure. the nonlinear dynamic procedure. where members are sensitive to vertical loads.g. Since the nonlinear dynamic analysis model incorporates inelastic member behavior under cyclic earthquake ground motions. inclusion of gravity loads will require a two-step (nonproportional loading) analysis. generally following the same assumptions as applied to determine seismic masses for design per ASCE 7 or other standards. should be accounted for in the calculated force demands. could be modeled with explicitly defined viscous damping terms in the [C] matrix or hysteretic springs in the stiffness [K] matrix. Damping may also occur in components of the gravity framing that undergo local inelastic deformations but are not modeled directly in the structural analysis. Two key questions are (1) what is an appropriate value for the inherent damping. provides a more accurate calculation of the structural response to strong ground shaking. Due to the inherent variability in earthquake ground motions. resulting in response history data on the pertinent demand parameters.5T. effects on (1) force and deformation demands in structural components and (2) large displacement P-∆ effects. Reasonable periods to specify these damping values are 0. Generally. viscous. It is usually adequate to lump the masses at the floor levels and to include inertial effects in the two horizontal directions. or hysteretic devices) should be modeled explicitly in the analysis. when properly implemented.
The inherent damping depends on many factors specific to a given building. e.g. such as rigid links. Charney (2008).. since scaling of actual recorded motions to a uniform hazard spectrum may bias the analysis results to either overestimate the response at short periods or underestimate it at longer periods. For example. However. it is further recommended to assess the sensitivity of the calculated demand parameters to the damping model formulation (e. where member stiffnesses are changing and unique vibration modes do not exist. range from low values of 0. ASCE 7 requires analyses for at least seven ground motions Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 24 . type and detailing of partition and façade walls. Recorded ground motions are generally scaled to match the hazard spectrum at one or more periods. For tall buildings. some of the proposed solutions must be implemented within the software formulation and cannot otherwise be controlled by the software user. When structures are expected to respond in multiple modes. structural materials. reported measurements of damping require careful interpretation. Critical damping values should be specified in the lower end of this range for (1) tall buildings and other structures where there is less participation by partition walls. and Council on Tall Buildings and the Urban Habitat (Willford et al. foundation type. While a comprehensive discussion on the selection and scaling of ground motion records is beyond the scope of this Technical Brief.. spectral matching may be more appropriate.g. the application of each method has implementation issues. Rayleigh versus modal) and the assumed critical damping values. moreover. Opinions differ as to which types are most appropriate.g. distance to the fault.4 Input Ground Motions Input ground motions should be selected and scaled so as to accurately represent the specific hazard of interest. As summarized in PEER/ATC 72-1 measurements of total damping. the input earthquake ground motions can either be (1) actual recorded ground motions from past earthquakes. For example. particularly for higher intensity motions (Baker and Cornell 2006).5T (with T as defined previously).5 % to 1 % in buildings under wind and ambient vibrations up to 10 % in buildings subjected to earthquakes. However. • Number of ground motions: Given the inherent variability in earthquake ground motions. while another suggested approach is to eliminate the stiffness proportional damping term and to only specify a value for the mass proportional damping term (am[M]). the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center guidelines (PEER 2010) recommend that viscous damping be less than 2. height of building. Some contend that this concern can be minimized by using the tangent rather than initial elastic stiffness matrix in the stiffness proportional damping term.The common Rayleigh and modal damping formulations were originally developed in the context of linear-elastic dynamic analysis. the hazard is defined in terms of response spectral accelerations with a specified mean annual frequency of exceedence. the measured damping of 10 % is likely to reflect energy dissipation due to both nonlinear hysteretic and inherent damping. such as in tall buildings.2T to 1. lumped plasticity versus fiber type models). • Source of ground motions: For building assessment and design. the ground motions should reflect the characteristics of the dominant earthquake source at the building site. for nonlinear analysis. an earthquake with a specified magnitude and distance from the site. and others.5% over the range of predominant modes. the software documentation should be consulted for details on the damping implementation and guidance on specifying damping parameters. where the stiffness matrix [K] is constant and the vibration modes can be uniquely calculated. Therefore. PEER/ATC 72-1. and (2) service level earthquake analyses where story drift ratios are limited to about 0.g. building codes typically define specific ground motion hazard levels for specific performance checks. in the latter case.. 6. or deterministic bounds on ground motion intensities. Recent studies have further shown that the shape of the ground motion response spectra is an important factor in choosing and scaling ground motions. (2) spectrally matched ground motions that are created by manipulating the frequency content and intensity of recorded ground motions to match a specific hazard spectrum.. For example. and the analysis model (e. As outlined in ASCE 7. Generally. 2008) recommends damping values in the range of 1% to 2%. site conditions. the following are some of the issues to consider: • Target hazard spectra or scenario: While the earthquake hazard is a continuum. or (3) artificially simulated motions. Thus. which are discussed by Hall (2006). Based on these observations and guidance in various documents. although other definitions are possible including scenario earthquakes.005. Therefore it is difficult to generalize as to the appropriate amount of additional damping to use in a nonlinear analysis. design standards typically require analyses for multiple ground motions to provide statistically robust measures of the demands.5T. ASCE 7 specifies rules for scaling the ground motions based on their spectral acceleration values for periods between 0. cladding and foundations. expressed in terms of percent critical damping in the first translational mode. such as fault mechanism. that are assigned artificially high stiffness. Beyond limiting the specified damping to values within these ranges. where T is the fundamental period of vibration of the structure. At present there is no clear consensus as to how to resolve these issues. and characteristic earthquake magnitude.2T to 1. it is suggested to specify equivalent viscous damping in the range of 1 % to 5 % of critical damping over the range of elastic periods from 0. e. it is generally accepted that the stiffness proportional term of the damping matrix (ak[K]) should exclude or minimize contributions from components whose stiffness changes dramatically during the analysis or for components.
The results shown here are just a small sample of the demand parameters that would need to be checked at appropriate earthquake intensity levels. based on a study by Haselton and Deierlein (2007).. the reliability of nonlinear dynamic analyses can be sensitive to modeling assumptions and parameters. especially in comparison to the large variability among individual ground 6. it is possible to obtain reliable mean values with fewer records. the reliability of such statistics is questionable when based on only seven ground motions.g.5 Interpretation of Results Given the inherent variability in the response of structures to earthquake ground motions and the many simplifying assumptions made in analysis. the results of any linear or nonlinear analysis for earthquake performance should be interpreted with care. the differences in median drift ratios from these two methods are rather modest. Included are (a) the static pushover curve. and (d) medians of the peak story drift ratios from dynamic analyses at three ground motion intensities. the story drift ratios from the static (Figure 6-1b) and dynamic (Figure 6-1d) analyses are plotted at corresponding ground motion intensities. (b) story drift ratios from static analysis for three target roof displacements. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 25 . while one could calculate additional statistics besides the mean.(or ground motion pairs for three-dimensional analyses) to determine mean values of demand parameters for design. For comparison purposes. Therefore. In concept. nonlinear static analyses can be used to augment the nonlinear dynamic analysis to interrogate structural behavior and the effect of design changes on the demands. as described in Sidebar 9. While nonlinear dynamic analyses will. Moreover. e. in theory. (a) Nonlinear static procedure pushover plot (b) Nonlinear static procedure story drift distribution (c) Nonlinear dynamic procedure peak story drifts (d) Nonlinear dynamic procedure story drift distribution Figure 6-1 – Nonlinear analysis results for eight story concrete moment frame (adapted from Haselton and Deierlein 2007). Shown in Figure 6-1 is an illustration of results for nonlinear static and dynamic analyses of an eight-story concrete frame. This is especially true when spectrally matched records are used. In this example. Moreover. the standard deviation of the demand parameters. where the natural variability in the ground motions is suppressed. (c) peak story drifts versus ground motion intensity from dynamic analyses for seven ground motions. the first step before any interpretation of results should be to establish confidence in the reliability of the model through strategies such as described in Sidebar 7. provide more realistic measures of response than other methods. but there is currently no consensus on methods to do so. such as through the use of spectrally matched records.
the uncertainties can be addressed using the methods suggested previously. to some extent. In spite of the large inherent uncertainties in earthquake ground motions and their effects on structures. An alternative method to evaluate the increased demands is to (1) repeat the nonlinear dynamic analyses for ground motions whose intensities are factored up by an appropriate factor (e.3 to 1. nonlinear dynamic analysis is considered to be the most reliable method available to evaluate the earthquake performance of buildings.3 to 1. While relatively straightforward to apply. when seven or more ground motions are run.g.. This could be done by systematically varying the model properties for the critical components and conducting dynamic and/or static nonlinear analyses to characterize the change in the calculated demand parameters. This assumption is very approximate for nonlinear systems. According to ASCE 7 and as commonly applied in practice. i. Whether or not these increased deformation demands will translate into increased component force demands depends on the structural configuration and the interaction of yielding and non-yielding components. Therefore.g. Otherwise. where the variation in response of specific structural components may change the inelastic mechanisms and distribution of internal forces and deformations. 1.5 times the calculated mean demands. it is generally recognized that more stringent criteria should be applied. Assuming dispersion of 0. the engineer must understand the capabilities and limitations of any method of analysis and make appropriate use of it to characterize the structural behavior with sufficient accuracy and confidence for design. Assuming a lognormal distribution of demand parameters with a dispersion (standard deviation of the natural log of the data and similar to a coefficient of variation) of 0. the simple demand multipliers assume a fixed relationship between ground motion intensities. the calculated mean demand parameter values should be compared to the acceptance criteria for the specified performance levels. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 26 . This alternative procedure has the benefit of accounting directly for inelastic force redistributions and possible shielding of force-controlled components.motions (Figure 6-1c). However. The potential impact of uncertainties in the structural response can. where “overload” of non-ductile force-controlled components may lead to sudden failures that could significantly affect the overall building safety. This large probability of exceedence is an accepted standard of practice. and (2) calculate mean demands for critical force-controlled components under the amplified input motions. While both of these approaches account for variability in earthquake ground motions. be mitigated through capacity design approaches in new buildings and to some extent in devising structural retrofits for existing buildings.5 times the mean demand parameter.. the checks based on mean values imply that the acceptance criteria would be exceeded about 40 % of the time. it may be appropriate to interrogate the model for such effects.5 in the displacement demands. where the lower multiplier (1.. neither directly addresses structural model uncertainties. Ultimately. mean annual frequency of exceedence) of the specified earthquake intensity is sufficiently low for the performance level being checked. there is a 15 % to 20 % probability that the actual demands will exceed the specified required strengths. The PEER Seismic Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings (2010) specify required strengths for force-controlled elements equal to 1.3) is permitted for systems where capacity design is used to shield force-controlled members. NIST (2010) conducted a more detailed study of the relative accuracy between nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. Primarily.e. and component deformation and force demands. drifts. the nonlinear dynamic procedure enables the evaluation of design decisions on a more consistent and rational basis as compared to other simplified analysis methods.5. a factor of 1. where the uncertainty in analysis model parameters is large and has the potential to significantly alter the structural response. provided that the likelihood (e.5 based on the PEER guidelines).
M. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 27 . 12.. T. G. “Spectral shape. 1-24. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. advanced engineering building module. R. References ACI (2008). “Unintended consequences of modeling damping in structures. Soong.” Structural Design of Tall Buildings. ASCE (2010). and Marshall. Washington. ANSI/AISC 341-10. Kanvinde. American Society of Civil Engineers. B. FEMA (2002). “Seismic response of structures with supplemental damping. Chicago. Reinhorn. (1993). C. “A comparison of the Krawinkler and scissors models for including beam-column joint deformations in the analysis of moment-resisting steel frames. 50 % Draft Report. G. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Gordon and Breach International Series in Engineering Technology and Applied Science. American Concrete Institute.C. p. Applied Technology Council. Constantinou. F. A. F.C. 35 (9). p. Charney. Large-scale testing and simulation of earthquake induced ultra low cycle fatigue in bracing members subjected to cyclic inelastic buckling. G. technical and user’s manual. 134 (1). J. A. F. V.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.C. Stanford University. Reston. 581-592. and Deierlein. Redwood City. A. 1077-1095. M. 31-48.. D. M. (2010). (2006). The Netherlands. MI. “A method for computing equivalent viscous damping ratio for structures with added viscous damping. and McNamara. and Symans. 134 (4). Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings. Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings. Constantinou. epsilon and record selection. A. Farmington Hills. D. FEMA (1997). (2008). J. A.. Charney.” Journal of Structural Engineering. J. Redwood City. VA. FEMA Report 273. M. Constantinou. A. M. p. T. (2006). Washington. ASCE (2007). FEMA Report 440. Applied Technology Council. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center TR 172. ATC 58.7. 43 (1). D. ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 with supplement 1. D. CA. S. p. AISC (2010). NY.” Engineering Journal. American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Reston. (1999). “Techniques in the nonlinear dynamic analysis of seismic isolated structures. and Cornell. American Institute of Steel Construction. (1998). Charney. C. ASCE/SEI Standard ASCE 7-10. p. IL. American Society of Civil Engineers. and Nagarajaiah. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Monograph Series. Fell.. Earthquake loss estimation methodology. American Institute of Steel Construction. Baker. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” Structural Dynamic Systems Computational Techniques and Optimization: Seismic Techniques. VA.. Passive energy dissipation for structural design and retrofit. Vol. Buffalo.. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Tsopelas. Amsterdam. P. p. Washington. 77-92.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. 2 (2). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary (ACI 318R-08). FEMA (2005).. F. D. HAZUS99-SR2. Stanford. 32-44. C. CA. ATC (2009). W. (2008). CA. and Dargush. ATC 40. American Society of Civil Engineers. ATC (1996). C. University at Buffalo.
K. p. K. M. NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 1. 2. CA. and Adan. NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. Berkeley. D.C. Kustu. 13 (4).FEMA (2006). American Society of Civil Engineers. Gaithersburg. D.” Journal of Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers. S. J. S. Kircher. p. Hamburger.” Engineering Structures. Hooper.. Nagarajaiah. 123 (10). (1991). National Institute of Standards and Technology.. C. “Development of Building Damage Functions for Earthquake Loss Estimation. Reinhorn. B. (1997). and Mosalam. University of California at Berkeley. Washington. Gaithersburg. J.. A. p. and Deierlein. Y. (2009). Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 28 . A.. CA. D. Ibarra. Nassar. p.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics.. Haselton. J. Kelly. S. “Estimation of Earthquake Losses to Buildings. 13 (4). 525-545. C. A. J.” Journal of Structural Engineering. and Altoontash. M. D. Seismic design of reinforced concrete special moment frames: A guide for practicing engineers... 971-987. and collectors. Whitman. FEMA (2009a). FEMA (2009b). 663-682. H. (1997b).. Moehle. and Arnold. L. A. Gaithersburg. P.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. p. “Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. 1686-1697. p. Kunnath. Reinhorn. O. O. (2008). F. 116 (4). Stanford. 117 (7). D. “Modeling of Masonry Infill Panels For Structural Analysis. Moehle. 1295-1302. Washington. 1489-1511. 21 (11). National Institute of Standards and Technology.. C. (2003). N. R. and Park. Hooper. 2035-2054. W.. 34 (12). D. and Holmes.. G. Madan. Seismic design of cast-in-place concrete diaphragms. K. S.” Earthquake Spectra. O. Reinhorn... T. technical manual. earthquake model. p. Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. C. Hall. 703-720. (1997a).C..C. and Biddah. MD. NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No.” Earthquake Spectra. Washington. Mander. 35 (5). M. (2005). Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings. and Meyer T. Modeling of unreinforced masonry infill walls considering in-plane and outof-plane interaction. A. K. M. Medina. and Lubke. “Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Rayleigh damping. Seismic design of special moment frames: A guide for practicing engineers. D. 129 (12). (1999). and Krawinkler. (1990). R. Kadysiewski. (2010). R. American Society of Civil Engineers.” Journal of Structural Engineering. “Modeling reinforced concrete beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading.. J. J. FEMA Report 306. Federal Emergency Management Agency. and Valles. A. H. NIST GCR 10-917-4. C. M. “Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic response of R/C structures. p. A... A. Kircher. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2006). HAZUS-MH MR2 Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology.. Stanford University. MD. MD. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center TR 156.. R. p. “Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete frames including joint shear deformation. J. NIST GCR 09-917-3.. (2009). FEMA Report 440a.. NIST GCR 09-917-1. A. PEER Report 2008/102. L. American Society of Civil Engineers. A.” Journal of Structural Engineering. Effects of strength and stiffness degradation on the seismic response of structural systems. G. Krawinkler. Reitherman. Malley. Lowes. J. J. R.. 996-1017. (2007). and Constantinou. chords.. National Institute of Standards and Technology. M. A. Ghobarah. R.. V. C. P.. 3. “Nonlinear dynamic analysis of three dimensional base isolated structures.
K. M. and Goel. Englewood Cliffs. F. (2007). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Recommendations for the seismic design of high-rise buildings.. (2008). 3rd Ed. IDARC 2D Version 7. (1992). T. Wilson. CA. Prentice Hall. 1960-1976. A. p. and Mahin. Technical Report MCEER-07-0016. Applied Technology Council. (1986). (1999). Towards earthquake resistant design of concentrically braced steel structures. A.. M. Madan. PEER 2008/08. and Waas. Y. IL. J.. Three-dimensional modeling of inelastic buckling in frame structures. Spacone. and Priestley. Uriz. Design of seismic isolated structures: From theory to practice. University of California at Berkeley.. (1989). C. Filippou.. CA (in press). A. Whittaker. Portugal. Technical Report MCEER-09-0006. Redwood City. prepared by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2002). NIST GCR 10-917-9. Kunnath. R. Modeling for structural analysis – Behavior and basics. Berkeley. C.. Berkeley. M. Inc. Computers and Structures Inc. Schachter. M. American Society of Civil Engineers. H. (2009). NY. Reinhorn. Inc. Berkeley. Three-dimensional static and dynamic analysis of structures. J. Illinois Institute of Technology. Chicago. “Dynamic stiffness of foundations on inhomogeneous soils.. NJ. CA. and Taucer. J.0: A program for the inelastic damage analysis of structures. University of California at Berkeley. PEER/ATC (2010). CA. 25 (7). and Klemencic. “Brace fractures and analysis of phase I structures. Sivaselvan. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Seismic design guidelines for tall buildings. A. Li... Valles. G. Paulay. Berkeley. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. Powell. Tang. G.. State University of New York.Naeim. E.” Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. E. (1996). X. R. NIST (2010). P.. M. J. “Fiber beam-column model for nonlinear analysis of R/C frames. and Reinhorn... Lobo. Computers and Structures. S. M. Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Roh. 115 (8). N. and Kelly. New York.. M. Gaithersburg. NY. Lisbon. P.. PEER (2010). 711-725. 1: formulation. S. State University of New York. p. Dynamic soil-structure interaction. (1985).” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. University at Buffalo. H. F. Willford. E. C. S. John Wiley and Sons. Applicability of nonlinear multiple-degree-of-freedom modeling for design. and Park. New York. CA..” Journal of Structural Engineering. (2008). University at Buffalo. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 29 . MD. PEER/ATC 72-1 Report. F. Wolf. Inc. R. Werkle. (2010).. John Wiley and Sons. October 2010. A. F.
Notations and Abbreviations Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 30 .8.
Abbreviations ACI AISC ASCE ATC CUREE FEMA NIST SEI PEER NEHRP American Concrete Institute American Institute of Steel Construction American Society of Civil Engineers Applied Technology Council Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering Federal Emergency Management Agency National Institute of Standards and Technology Structural Engineering Institute Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 31 .
Credits Cover photo Figure 1-1 (a) Figure 1-1 (b) Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 Figure 2-7 Figure 2-8 Figure 3-1 Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3 Figure 3-4 Figure 3-5 Figure 4-1 Figure 4-2 Figure 5-1 Figure 6-1 Image courtesy of Tipping Mar Image courtesy of KMD Architects and Tipping Mar Image courtesy of Tipping Mar Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Andrei Reinhorn Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Andrei Reinhorn Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Andrei Reinhorn Image courtesy of American Society of Civil Engineers Printed with permission from ASCE Image courtesy of Applied Technology Council Image courtesy of Federal Emergency Management Agency Image courtesy of Applied Technology Council Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Andrei Reinhorn Image courtesy of Greg Deierlein Image courtesy of Benjamin Fell Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Andrei Reinhorn Image courtesy of Applied Technology Council Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Andrei Reinhorn Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Michael Willford Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Michael Willford Image courtesy of Federal Emergency Management Agency Image courtesy of Curt Haselton and Greg Deierlein Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers 32 .9.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.